Keith Bostic wrote:
> Well, there's a difference between "not working" and "failing".
> :-)
>
> This error will force the application to abort a transaction,
> or a non-transactional read will fail, returning an error. The
> system as a whole will continue to work correctly. (If the
> application was doing non-transactional database modifications,
> of course, it might not be able to recover, but that's why it's
> using transactions in the first place, to handle these kinds of
> failure without having to halt the system.)
If that's the case how come when people end up getting these out of
memory failures the problem doesn't simply resolve itself when usage of
the repository goes down to a more reasonable level? I'm not positive,
but if I recall correctly people generally have to run recovery before
things start working again.
>>Is there
>>anyway to make it allocate more room to the cache dynamically?
>
>
> Not really -- here's a longer answer than you probably wanted,
> but the argument goes something like this:
>
[ snip long, but interesting, details ]
All right, yeah, I can see why you don't extend the size of the cache ;-)
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 8 22:04:43 2004